Author Topic: Micro vs Macro criteria (Read 12531 times)

melastmohican · « **on:** June 17, 2010, 19:20 »

I am not a pro and I started with uploading my images to microstock. Recently I have been trying to get enrolled on some macro agencies and I have no idea how should I divide my work for micro and macro. Which subjects would do better if I do not send them to micro but set aside to upload them to macro later?

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #1 on:** June 17, 2010, 20:26 »

I don't know that anyone can answer that question for you as it depends on several factors. What I do, however, is give everything I shoot to my RM agencies and the ones they reject go to microstock.

melastmohican · « **Reply #2 on:** June 17, 2010, 21:05 »

Quote from: mlwinphoto on June 17, 2010, 20:26

I don't know that anyone can answer that question for you as it depends on several factors. What I do, however, is give everything I shoot to my RM agencies and the ones they reject go to microstock.

In other words less successful takes are landing in micro, right? So there is no difference in subject, just technical quality?

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #3 on:** June 17, 2010, 22:06 »

Quote from: melastmohican on June 17, 2010, 21:05

Quote from: mlwinphoto on June 17, 2010, 20:26
I don't know that anyone can answer that question for you as it depends on several factors. What I do, however, is give everything I shoot to my RM agencies and the ones they reject go to microstock.

In other words less successful takes are landing in micro, right? So there is no difference in subject, just technical quality?

Yes typically technical quality is more stringent in microstock.

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #4 on:** June 17, 2010, 22:25 »

Quote from: Zeus on June 17, 2010, 22:06

Quote from: melastmohican on June 17, 2010, 21:05
Quote from: mlwinphoto on June 17, 2010, 20:26
I don't know that anyone can answer that question for you as it depends on several factors. What I do, however, is give everything I shoot to my RM agencies and the ones they reject go to microstock.

In other words less successful takes are landing in micro, right? So there is no difference in subject, just technical quality?

Yes typically technical quality is more stringent in microstock.

It has nothing to do with technical quality....the quality standards are dependent on the agency you are dealing with. Technical issues aside an agency will keep an image if it meets their needs. I choose to give my RM agencies first crack at an image as I would rather have the opportunity to make several hundred dollars per sale with that image than a few dollars (or considerably less) per sale as happens in the microstock market.

Perry · « **Reply #5 on:** June 18, 2010, 04:51 »

I tend to send niche images to macro agencies, ie. images that won't be sold in volumes at micros.
1 or 5 micro sales isn't enought for one image, but 1 or 5 macro sales could be...

mtkang · « **Reply #6 on:** July 22, 2010, 10:22 »

I am trying to sell RM photos in alamy..browse through their photos, it seems technical quality isn't as strict as microstock..and more creative 'snapshot' can be found too, i read alamy doesn't reject much photos as long as pixel is technically okay and didn't upsize badly.

I also see some RM images like a canon xxxx model DSLR isolated on white, will people really pay an RM image like that?

it is quite strange, what is selling in macro? a brand DSLR isolated on white has a demand in RM market?

cardmaverick · « **Reply #7 on:** July 22, 2010, 12:02 »

My knee jerk answer is...

Creative: RM

Typical: Micro

donding · « **Reply #8 on:** July 22, 2010, 12:25 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on July 22, 2010, 12:02

My knee jerk answer is...

Creative: RM

Typical: Micro

I agree...the buyer will more than likely go to the macro for those creative shots since many times they can't be found in the micro world, but the typical everyday image can be found easily in micro so why would they buy it from macro for more money when they can get it for much less at the micro's.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #9 on:** July 22, 2010, 12:36 »

Quote from: donding on July 22, 2010, 12:25

Quote from: cardmaverick on July 22, 2010, 12:02
My knee jerk answer is...

Creative: RM

Typical: Micro

I agree...the buyer will more than likely go to the macro for those creative shots since many times they can't be found in the micro world, but the typical everyday image can be found easily in micro so why would they buy it from macro for more money when they can get it for much less at the micro's.

In all my innocence, I've chosen text books, encyclopedias, etc. as a benchmark. From way back before the internet they offered a market for stock. Now, they still use stock but from internet sources. I've just noticed that Encyclopedia Britannica is using microstock images. The images were purchased as On Demand, however; which could mean that they keep their options open.

@melastmohecan; you ask some very good questions. I noticed that I am (not intentionally) following a similar path. Maybe we should have set our sights higher in the beginning and worked our way to the bottom.

lisafx · « **Reply #10 on:** July 22, 2010, 18:47 »

Quote from: mtkang on July 22, 2010, 10:22

I also see some RM images like a canon xxxx model DSLR isolated on white, will people really pay an RM image like that?

it is quite strange, what is selling in macro? a brand DSLR isolated on white has a demand in RM market?

There is no telling what will sell. Quite a few of my isolated-over-white images sell on Alamy. It surprised me, but I am definitely not complaining

mtkang · « **Reply #11 on:** July 22, 2010, 22:05 »

I can understand if the isolated on white object are rare items like a old radio or a rare camera. But a canon 5d or P&S is everywhere, will there be customer buy it for RM license.

but i am also quite surprise just pay 25 cents subs download in shutterstock, and you can use it as book cover. I thought those little money will just grant one to use in website or their invitation cards to their party, but i didn't know it can end up as bookcover and i just got paid 25 cents.

Quote from: lisafx on July 22, 2010, 18:47

Quote from: mtkang on July 22, 2010, 10:22

I also see some RM images like a canon xxxx model DSLR isolated on white, will people really pay an RM image like that?

it is quite strange, what is selling in macro? a brand DSLR isolated on white has a demand in RM market?

There is no telling what will sell. Quite a few of my isolated-over-white images sell on Alamy. It surprised me, but I am definitely not complaining

Suljo · « **Reply #12 on:** July 22, 2010, 22:14 »

I have mostly selled isolated stuff on white on Alamy which is rejected on iStock by they confusive rejections. In same time they dont know is it to rough or too smoth for them

While that Alamy made about 20% of all income of iStock in this trivial things what they reject in first place.
So iStock is the iStock and I dont need to prove it to anybody.
Just another big step away from exlusivity

lisafx · « **Reply #13 on:** July 23, 2010, 08:14 »

Quote from: mtkang on July 22, 2010, 22:05

but i am also quite surprise just pay 25 cents subs download in shutterstock, and you can use it as book cover. I thought those little money will just grant one to use in website or their invitation cards to their party, but i didn't know it can end up as bookcover and i just got paid 25 cents.

Well, that's the definition of Royalty Free. What you are talking about sounds more like RM.

It's a good idea to research the Licensing Terms of each of the sites before signing up so you won't have any unpleasant surprises later

madelaide · « **Reply #14 on:** July 23, 2010, 16:18 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 23, 2010, 08:14

Quote from: mtkang on July 22, 2010, 22:05

but i am also quite surprise just pay 25 cents subs download in shutterstock, and you can use it as book cover. I thought those little money will just grant one to use in website or their invitation cards to their party, but i didn't know it can end up as bookcover and i just got paid 25 cents.

Well, that's the definition of Royalty Free.

I think the point is that book covers, as well as CD covers, should justify an EL.

lisafx · « **Reply #15 on:** July 23, 2010, 16:39 »

Quote from: madelaide on July 23, 2010, 16:18

Quote from: lisafx on July 23, 2010, 08:14
Quote from: mtkang on July 22, 2010, 22:05

but i am also quite surprise just pay 25 cents subs download in shutterstock, and you can use it as book cover. I thought those little money will just grant one to use in website or their invitation cards to their party, but i didn't know it can end up as bookcover and i just got paid 25 cents.

Well, that's the definition of Royalty Free.

I think the point is that book covers, as well as CD covers, should justify an EL.

No doubt. That would be great!

Still, microstock has never been about using images just in "websites or invitations to parties". Lots of folks have had big uses including book covers, magazine covers, billboards, sides of buses, (Glidden paint cans) etc., etc. that were all within the regular RF license.

I had two images used in a major promotion for Wal Mart a couple of years back. There was a cardboard cutout with my model in every Wal Mart store in the US. Wal Mart and Glidden definitely could have afforded to spend a lot more. I have a choice to either be upset that they got the images so cheap, or happy they picked my images in the first place. I choose the latter. I am sure most of us have had similar experiences.

Fortunately there is RM for those who aren't comfortable with broad permissions of the micro licenses... Hence my advice to read the TOS at each site and avoid surprises

ap · « **Reply #16 on:** July 23, 2010, 16:46 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 23, 2010, 16:39

I had two images used in a major promotion for Wal Mart a couple of years back. There was a cardboard cutout with my model in every Wal Mart store in the US. Wal Mart and Glidden definitely could have afforded to spend a lot more. I have a choice to either be upset that they got the images so cheap, or happy they picked my images in the first place. I choose the latter. I am sure most of us have had similar experiences.

that is so interesting, but to clarify the point: did you not receive an el for that photo? or did the # of cardboard cutouts not reach the 250,000 (or 500,000 at is) plateau for print publication? you'd think size might add to the #s. in any case, fame trumps money at times.

hopefully it wasn't a sub purchase.

lisafx · « **Reply #17 on:** July 23, 2010, 17:03 »

No, I did not receive an EL. I am just guessing, but I don't think the number of Wal Mart stores in the US exceeds 250,000. (just looked it up - there are 2500 Wal Mart stores and 585 Sams Clubs, so nowhere near the threshold for an EL)

I can't tell you if it was a sub or not since the image has sold on several sites.

Like I said, I am happy when someone downloads my photos and when I find them in legitimate use.

I made the decision when I joined the micros that volume and total monthly income was more important than per image sale price. Just assumed other microstock contributors had decided the same or else they wouldn't be selling micro. Am I missing something?

ETA: The model certainly enjoyed her 15 minutes of "fame", but I still prefer money.

madelaide · « **Reply #18 on:** July 23, 2010, 17:16 »

Lisa,

I think microstock made allowed usages TOO broad - the covers, the print run and some other loose restrictions. I'm sure the microstock model would be successful with more stringent rules. It's too late to change that, but I still don't like this, yet I have to live with it.

lisafx · « **Reply #19 on:** July 23, 2010, 17:21 »

Quote from: madelaide on July 23, 2010, 17:16

Lisa,

I think microstock made allowed usages TOO broad - the covers, the print run and some other loose restrictions. I'm sure the microstock model would be successful with more stringent rules. It's too late to change that, but I still don't like this, yet I have to live with it.

You make a lot of sense Maria. Would be great if the rules were tightened up, but I agree with you that its unlikely at this point.

Some help from the micros in enforcing the rules they DO have would be very welcome also.

ap · « **Reply #20 on:** July 23, 2010, 17:50 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 23, 2010, 17:21

Quote from: madelaide on July 23, 2010, 17:16
Lisa,

I think microstock made allowed usages TOO broad - the covers, the print run and some other loose restrictions. I'm sure the microstock model would be successful with more stringent rules. It's too late to change that, but I still don't like this, yet I have to live with it.

You make a lot of sense Maria. Would be great if the rules were tightened up, but I agree with you that its unlikely at this point.

Some help from the micros in enforcing the rules they DO have would be very welcome also.

+1

i can't wrap my head around the fact that some co. can use a sub for a billboard. i mean they're huge. it should definitely go by the square feet.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Micro vs Macro criteria (Read 12531 times)

melastmohican

mlwinphoto

melastmohican

PeterChigmaroff

mlwinphoto

Perry

mtkang

cardmaverick

donding

WarrenPrice

lisafx

mtkang

Suljo

lisafx

madelaide

lisafx

ap

lisafx

madelaide

lisafx

ap

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors